Xcel Energy dodged a potential $1 million-plus Public Utilities Commission fine for an alleged 23-month delay in completing required paperwork so a homeowner can start getting paid for electricity generated by his home solar power system.

The homeowner, Peter Simmons of Aurora, spent more than $25,000 installing a solar panel system on his roof, expecting that Xcel Energy would begin paying him for the power he generated.

Simmons said the installation was properly permitted by the city and installed by a licensed electrician. He said he completed the necessary application paperwork and submitted it to Xcel in February 2023.

After several consultations with Xcel, Simmons said he turned on the system on Aug. 8, 2023, and began contributing electricity to Xcel’s grid, expecting to start receiving payments for the power.

In late October 2023, he filed an informal complaint with the PUC claiming that Xcel was not crediting his solar panel production against his electric bill, which he said showed no credit for his power input.

Since then, Simmons says he has been trying for nearly two years to complete the paperwork required by Xcel, but has yet to be successful, despite repeated communications about deficiencies in the documents Xcel provided that needed to be signed by both parties.

State law requires Xcel to execute a Distributed Energy Resources agreement that outlines the terms and conditions for interconnecting customer-owned solar power systems to Xcel’s electrical grid.

The statute requires that the DER agreement be executed within 30 days of the application, or Xcel Energy could face a potential $2,000 per day fine. Simmons said Xcel has been stonewalling his agreement by not sending him all the documents he says are required by it.

Fed up with being ignored by both the PUC and Xcel, Simmons filed a lawsuit on June 8, 2024, in Arapahoe County Court, asking the court to require Xcel to send him all the documents listed in the DER, which he says were incomplete and not correctly filled out.

Simmons said that several provisions in the DER agreement don’t apply to his installation but that Xcel refuses to put “N/A” (not applicable) in those blanks, insisting that he cannot sign an incomplete document.

He also said that Xcel failed to provide a full copy of another document titled “Safety, Interference and Interconnection Guidelines for Cogenerators, Small Power Producers and Customer-Owned Generation” mentioned by reference in the DER, but not included in the package which, he said, means that he cannot attest to a document he hadn’t seen, and therefore he cannot sign the DER.

At a court-ordered mediation session, Xcel finally provided a completed DER with the changes Simmons requested. Xcel added what Simmons said was a “gag order” and a release of liability that had not been part of the mediation agreement. He eventually signed the DER on Oct. 4, 2024.

On Nov. 13, 2024, as Simmons says he was walking into the courtroom for the trial, Xcel’s attorney handed him a court order dismissing the case for “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and directing the dispute to the PUC complaint process, something Simmons says he’d been trying to do since October 2023.

Simmons filed a formal complaint with the PUC on Nov. 20, asking that the PUC fine Xcel $1,160,000 for failing to provide an executed interconnection agreement within 30 business days, as law requires.

Simmons filed another complaint on Nov. 25, asking for a different amount.

In its motion to dismiss, Xcel said it “has provided to the Complainant a DER Agreement which is complete, legally sufficient, and in compliance with the Company’s Electric Tariff. “

The PUC administrative law judge who reviewed the case chastised both parties for not resolving the matter without asking the PUC to intervene.

“The picture painted by the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss is of two parties who were entirely inflexible in trying to reach what should have been an easily achievable outcome: the signing of a contract to interconnect Mr. Simmons’ solar array,” said judge Conor Farley in his recommendation. “The parties should have acted more reasonably to work this out without the intervention of the Commission.”

In a statement to The Denver Gazette, Xcel Energy spokesperson Michelle Aguayo said, “I can tell you that we met all utility established deadlines in his case.”

On Oct. 4, 2024, the PUC accepted Xcel’s motion to dismiss and closed the case without any financial sanctions against Xcel.